Massachusetts voters choose these two ballot measures regarding liquor licenses and dental insurance – Ballotpedia News

The Massachusetts secretary of state has completed the process of verifying the second set of signatures submitted by campaigns for two ballot measures.

The Committee on Dental Insurance is leading a campaign to support a ballot measure to set the medical loss threshold for dental plans at 83% and require the insurance company to reimburse the remainder to the individual and the insured groups. The medical loss ratio is the portion of the money that the health insurance company spends on the goals, treatment, and quality of treatment for its customers. Currently, Massachusetts has established an 88% medical malpractice coverage for medical insurance plans, but no medical malpractice coverage for dental insurance plans.

The act would also require dental insurance carriers to submit to the current insurance executive and the risk of medical loss in the plans and financial information. Transporters will be required to register the prices of the product groups, with any changes to the prices taking place within the next July of the previous year. The Commissioner will be authorized to approve or prohibit the prices of any goods.

The project has received endorsements from the Association of Independent Dentists, the Massachusetts Association of Orthodontists, the American Dental Association Political Action Committee, and the Massachusetts Dental Society.

Daisy Kumar, a registered nurse and a founding member of the voting inquiry committee, said, “We don’t expect dental insurance companies to waste our money by paying officers, having giants, extortionists, sneaky payments to affiliates or gifts to parent companies that add another layer of waste.” . Our insurance premiums are not designed to be a giveaway to dental insurance companies. They are designed to help families like mine and yours.”

The Committee to Protect Access to Good Dental Care is leading a campaign against the practice. The committee said, “Those who are behind this question are not targeting the voters.” What they’re not telling you is that their anti-consumer policies will increase costs for families and employers in Massachusetts — nearly a 40% premium increase in one recent study — and could result in thousands of people being denied access to much-needed health care. .”

A second ballot initiative sponsored by the Massachusetts Package Stores Association has also made it to the November ballot. The project will increase the number of licenses for the sale of alcohol and wine that the organization can hold from 12 in 2023 to 18 by 2031; reducing the total number of liquor licenses a company can hold from nine to seven; and prohibits the sale of alcohol for self-service and personal consumption. It would also change the formula used to calculate the fine for selling alcohol to minors by using the gross profit for all retail sales instead of the gross profit for just the sale of alcohol, and add out-of-state driver’s licenses to the list of valid identification under the State Liquor Control Act.

On June 13, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled on a lawsuit filed by Cumberland Farms that challenged the rules of the policy, arguing that it contains inconsistent content. The court said that this “provides voters with an integrated system” that “does not require the voter to vote on separate issues.”

A similar ballot initiative was proposed in the 2012 election, but the effort was halted when the state legislature sided with supporters.

In Massachusetts, the power of action is indirect, which means that the Massachusetts Supreme Court must consider the first steps to succeed after the initial signature. If the parliament has not established the project, sponsors must collect a second signature. During the 2022 campaign, the total number of signatures for both phases of the petition was published 93,613, which is equivalent to 3.5% of the votes cast for the governor in the most recent gubernatorial election.

Massachusetts voters will also consider a constitutional amendment that would add a 4% tax on wages over $1 million, on top of the existing 5% tax, and provide funding for education and transportation.

Between 1996 and 2020, about 54% (22 of 41) of all measures that appeared on the national ballot were approved, and about 46% (19 of 41) were defeated.